Dr. LoR · @drlor4
5th Apr 2022 from TwitLonger
LoR is a big enough game for all of us
There's been a lot of discussion on LoR Twitter recently on open vs closed decklists, and it's not the first time. Let me provide my 2 cents on this and other frequent topics of LoR discussion.
I'll be using the Timmy/Johnny/Spike psychographic profiles that Mark Rosewater and Wizards R&D came up with (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03).In short, Spike likes to win, Johnny likes to be creative (and loves combos), and Timmy likes big powerful effects (in Magic, this was usually big creatures like Dragons or Angels that cost a lot of mana but had a big effect; in LoR, this is also big units like Cithria Lady of Clouds and big spells like Feel the Rush). There are also other aesthetic profiles (liking skins, lore, self-expression, game mechanics) that I won't talk about (https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Player_type#Aesthetic_profile).
Whether it's an assumption or just empirical truth, both Johnny and Timmy care more about the "quality" of their wins rather than the quantity. That's why Timmy was happy to play Mono-Shurima when it was a sub 45% WR deck. It's OK to win less often as long as you get to 'do the thing' some of the time. Lurk was never that OP but it feels super powerful when you hit all your lurks and champs and just 'go off'. Shellfolk decks were rarely that competitive BUT they felt GREAT when you pulled off the win.
When I think about the LoR competitive scene, it's mainly a mix of Spikes and Spike/Johnny hybrids. (Casual players are by definition non-Spikes.) That is, competitive players like to win and some (many?) also care about the way they win being fun (for them). This is why folks like @MajiinBaeLoR disliked the meta when Scouts or Pantheon is good but liked it when Ahri Kennen is the best deck. The fact that Ahri Kennen's complexity was viewed as fun by many top players is why we saw so few complaints about it (also because so few people played it below top levels). The fact that Patch 3.2 was a very diverse meta but players complained about it is because many top players found YiA Rally and Pantheon boring to play with or against.
Back to the original topic. LoR discourse often revolves around 1) open vs closed decklists, 2) Bo3 vs Bo1 ladder, and 3) ladder sucking because you run into polarizing decks like Tree or Anivia. All of these conversations are complex and multifaceted, but at least one important part of them is that the proponents on each side have different psychographic profiles and therefore have different preferences for what they want from the game.
Take open vs closed decklists. Many players (I suspect mostly Spikes) in favor of open decklists have an argument that basically boils down to allowing good players to find an optimal line of play among a smaller subset of cards. By knowing I don't have to play against Judgment, Rush, Ruination, etc., I have an easier time beating the cards that ARE in my opponent's deck. They view this as expressing more skill. Closed decklist proponents mainly talk about how open decklists would stifle creativity. Indeed, a lot of the benefit of making your own deck is your opponent not knowing what to play around, which sometimes is pejoratively referred to as "cheesing a win." (Of course, there are also arguments that Closed decklists allow games to start faster, which is an undeniable benefit.)
Bo3 vs Bo1 and polarized deck match-ups are related issues. Spikes argue in favor of Bo3 because they don't like the fact that sometimes you run into bad matchups or bad hands and therefore Bo3 reduces variance or increases control over what decks you face, thus increasing 'good players' perceived chances of winning. The existence of polarized matchups makes it so that ladder play has a metagame, so you can lose the metagame of choosing the best deck in any given micro-meta. In other words, Spikes want situations that they can win more often and with lower variance. There's nothing wrong with this, because winning is what Spikes get joy from. BUT, Spikes also have to accept that Bo1 and closed decklists are more friendly for less-Spikey players.
So I hope we can agree that players with different psychographic profile all deserve to have fun. No game can exist on just Spikes, because not every player can have a 60%+ WR (mathematically). For every player who rocks a massive 70% WR to 1000+ LP, their opponents had to lose 70% of their games. When I hear @MegaMogwai complain about the meta being in a bad state, it's because his creative deckbuilding needs feel constrained, and I feel for that psychographic. At the same time, when I see players give other players crap for their netdecked/stupid aggro/meta deck choices, I also feel like this is doing a major disservice to players, as Spikes should be allowed to enjoy their game too.
tl;dr Different people want different things from a game, and you're all right. Rather than arguing past each other every time one of these topics come up, let's embrace our differences and see where the other side is coming from. LoR is a big enough game for all of us.